Below is an interesting article I found. It is a year later in Iraq. A Constitution have already been signed, and according to the latest polls, a majority of the Iraqis are optimistic about the future of their country.
--------------------------------------------

IRAQ, ONE YEAR LATER
Fri Mar 19, 3:32 AM ET

As Americans prepared to mark the one-year anniversary of the start of the Iraq (news - web sites) war, hopes were rising yesterday that Pakistani forces had caught a "high-value" al Qaeda asset.

Though the situation - and the identity of the "asset" - was unclear, signs suggested that it was Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who'd been nabbed. If true, it would mark a turning point in the War on Terror.

And would come - like so many events in this war - on an auspicious day: One year ago today, American and allied forces began to free Iraq from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s tyranny.

Undertaken little more than a year after the destruction of the Taliban/al Qaeda regime in Afghanistan (news - web sites), Operation Iraqi Freedom was a daring manifestation of the Bush administration's revolution in American foreign policy: the pre-emptive neutralization of threats presented by rogue states and terrorists.

In conventional military terms, the gamble paid off - immediately, efficiently, magnificently.

The cruel Ba'athist regime - which had slaughtered hundreds of thousands of people, initiated two brutal wars against its neighbors and long threatened regional peace and stability - was destroyed in just weeks.

Where the 1991 Gulf War (news - web sites) saw about 100 allied combat deaths, Coalition losses in the 2003 war turned out to be a third of that.

This amazing statistic - and the fact that it took so little time to overrun Iraq - made the war an almost unprecedented feat of conventional arms.

Yes, some projections by the allied war planners turned out to be off the mark:

* The Shias of southern Iraq, remembering allied forces' cruel failure to support their 1991 rebellion, didn't rise up in support of the 2003 invasion (though they welcomed it nevertheless).

* The Iraqi army did not use chemical or biological weapons to slow down the allied assault as expected.

However, the predictions of the anti-war crowd were astonishingly wrong:

* Iraqi cities did not turn into Stalingrads or Groznys. There was no huge refugee crisis, no mass starvation - indeed no humanitarian or environmental catastrophe of any kind.

* It didn't require weeks of bloody house-to-house fighting to take Baghdad.

* Despite systematic violations of the laws of war by Iraqi forces (like wearing civilian clothes, driving in civilian vehicles and siting military outposts in civilian areas), civilian deaths were remarkably low relative to other major military conflicts - and the critics' predictions.

* The "Arab street" did not burst into flame, causing the overthrow of allied regimes in the region.

* Israel was not drawn into the war.

* The globe's billion-plus Muslims did not unite against America and its allies.

* Despite division, there was no irreparable breach with France, Germany, Canada or other Western allies that refused to support Saddam's ouster.

Some press coverage sought to depict attacks by Saddam Fedayeen and Ba'athist militias during - and, especially, since - the war as popular resistance to the Coalition. Yet the salient fact of the war was the disintegration of Saddam's armies and the remarkable lack of civilian hostility to the allied troops.

Apart from the speed of victory, of course, the two biggest surprises were the Coalition's failure to find weapons of mass destruction and - to some degree, offsetting that - the discovery of more mass graves than anyone ever imagined.

Weapons of mass destruction may yet turn up; as the Kay report noted, Saddam clearly had WMD programs, if not the weapons themselves.

But it now seems that the Bush administration and American intelligence were indeed misled about Saddam's stockpiles.

Then again, so were former President Clinton (news - web sites), Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites), the governments of France and Germany - and U.N. chief inspecter Hans Blix.

And maybe even Saddam himself.

Anyway, the invasion was unambiguously legal: Iraq was in violation of the letter and the spirit of multiple U.N. Security Council resolutions - and of the Gulf War ceasefire of 1991.

Those resolutions demanded that Iraq declare and surrender WMD stocks and programs. America didn't need to prove anything; it was up to Saddam to comply with Security Council Resolution 687.

Passed in 1991, it placed the burden on the Iraqi regime to "unconditionally accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless, under international supervision," of its WMD stocks and programs.

And this it did not do. Ever.

But the presumed existence of WMDs was neither the sole nor the strongest argument for regime change.

Saddam had given sanctuary to murderous terrorists, threatened neighboring states and demonstrated both the willingness and ability to commit mass murder on a genocidal scale.

His overthrow was a boon to the Iraqi people - and to the entire Middle East.

There are no guarantees, of course, but it seems clear that the allied project in Iraq is indeed working - despite the inherent difficulties of building a stable representative democracy in a land that has long known tyranny.

And which has become a primary target for ruthless Islamist terrorists.

Despite missteps by the Coalition Provisional Authority, continued guerrilla attacks by Ba'athists in the Sunni Triangle and terrorist outrages that have cost hundreds of innocent lives, things are getting better in Iraq.

According to the latest polls, the Iraqi people know this. And they appreciate it.

Meanwhile, toppling Saddam has had - and continues to have - a beneficial effect in the region.

An obvious example is the sudden capitulation of Libya's Moammar Khadafy, who abandoned a WMD program that was much more extensive than foreign intelligence services had believed.

The salutary effects of Saddam's removal can also be seen in the increased ferment in Iran, in calls for human rights and Kurdish self-determination in Syria - and in the new cooperativeness of Pakistan's Gen. Pervez Musharraf in matters of nuclear proliferation and the extirpation of al Qaeda.

Yes, Osama remains at large.

And yes, Iraq is a nation in transition.

But President Bush (news - web sites) laid it all on the line in speaking to the nation a year ago tonight: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment."

Now the overriding question is: Does America have the staying power to see it to a proper conclusion?

to be well informed is a question of reading news among differents media

Is the world a safer place?
A year after the start of the US-led invasion of Iraq, the BBC's security correspondent, Frank Gardner looks at the repercussions of that war on the international security situation.

One of the criticisms of the was in Iraq is that it has made the world a more dangerous place. Is this correct?

In the short term, yes. The US-led invasion and subsequent occupation of a sovereign Arab country has provided a rallying point for those who see the West as neo-colonialists bent on oppressing Muslims and controlling Arab oil reserves.

While this is by no means a universal viewpoint in the Arab world, such suspicions have helped al-Qaeda's recruiting and extended their support base.
On the other hand, the war has removed any possibility that Iraq could have become a nuclear nation in the future with Saddam Hussein and his brutal sons having their fingers on the button.

Can we be sure we are seeing al-Qaeda's hand behind the attacks in Iraq?

No, we can't, although it looks increasingly likely that there is some cooperation between Islamist militants who fought in Afghanistan and local Iraqis violently opposed to the US military and its Iraqi allies.

There have also been a number of statements purporting to come from al-Qaeda which claim responsibility for major attacks in Iraq, and which threaten more.

What does this mean for the Middle East as a whole?

Arab regimes, especially those in the Gulf, generally dislike instability. This is why they were so concerned at the potential consequences of a US invasion of Iraq.

Now, one year on, they face several problems. These include small sections of their youth wanting to volunteer to fight the Americans in Iraq, and those young men, in turn, making links with local Islamists sympathetic to al-Qaeda; enormous pressure from Washington to reform and democratise; and a revival of old Sunni-Shia rivalries given the latter's newfound powers in Iraq.

One year on, what can we say about the success or otherwise of the "war on terror"?

It's a misleading term, because due to the ideological nature of the al-Qaeda movement this is not a war that can ever be definitively won or lost.

The West's early successes in depriving al-Qaeda of its physical bases in Afghanistan in 2001, then freezing suspect bank accounts, have given way to a growing realisation that the global threat of terrorism could be with us for decades.

Counter-terrorism intelligence co-operation between and within nations has improved enormously. But the bombings in Istanbul and Madrid prove that Islamic militants, whether linked to al-Qaeda or not, still have the capability to inflict massive death tolls.

Is there another way, or other ways, to prosecute this "war"?

The Pentagon, which is the main driving force behind the US-led "war on terror", has naturally tended to focus on military successes, including the killing or capture of key al-Qaeda figures.

But nearly every analyst agrees that not enough is being done to tackle al-Qaeda's popularity, which stems from a widespread Muslim disenchantment with both the US and its government allies in the region.

The lost opportunity of not planning properly for a swift victory over Saddam Hussein has had disastrous consequences for the West. Iraq is still a dangerous mess and Arabs blame the West.

Since the US-led war in Iraq, things are starting to change especially in the Middle East where most of the terrorists are from. The results show:

1. Saudi Arabia who wasn't very serious in cracking down on terrorism is now serious about it especially after two bombings in the country.

2. People in Iran have been protesting and demanding reforms from their government after the US-led war in Iraq.

3. Two dictorial regimes - the Taliban and Saddam - are now out! Saddam has been captured and his two sons are dead. The less dictators in the world, the BETTER - and this is a proven fact.

5. Iran and Libya have suddenly decided to cooperate with the UN weapons inspection after seeing what happened to Iraq. As Saddam defied the UN for 12 years, no country took the UN seriously. Now, after seeing what happened to Saddam, lo and behold, Iran and Libya have suddenly changed their song and dance.

6. Syria is now seeking for a peace treaty with Israel and the US after the US has threatened sanctions. Syria is also opening up its country to UN weapons inspection. In fact, the Syrian dictator said in a news report that he will do whatever America says.

7. About 75% of Al-Queda leaders are either killed or captured. That's good news. Bin Laden and his gang are now on the run and in hiding! Or do you prefer that Bin Laden and Al-Queda remain under the protective custody of the Taliban? I prefer that they remain on the run, hunted down, and exterminated like the rabid dogs they truly are.

8. Democratic reforms are taking place in Afhganistan and Iraq. A constitution have already been developed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

9. According to the latest polls taken on March 2004, a majority of the Iraqis stated that life is better now than under Saddam. The polls showed that 71% of the Iraqis are optmistic of their country's future. The Iraqis have read the letter published by Zarqawi, who is an Al-Queda leader. His letter translated in English is found in the weblink below:

This is what the Iraqis have read, and as they can see, Zarqawi hates BOTH Sunni and Shi'ite muslims. The Iraqis understand that unity is what will defeat the enemy because the enemy cares only about themselves. Al-Queda failed to bring about a civil war between the Sunnis and Shi'ite muslims. Also, according to recent polls, 85% of the Iraqis support the continued missions of the Coaltion in Iraq.

Iraqis are now getting into the Internet and expressing how they feel. The weblink I posted above is one of the Iraqi blogsites.

10. There is also a change taking place in the Middle East. People in the Middle East are now having serious discussions about the US-led war in Iraq. According to Osama al-Ghazali Harb, a top figure at Egypt's semiofficial Al Ahram center for strategic studies, the most important think tank in Egypt, who published an article in the country's leading political quarterly, Al Siyassa Al Dawliya, in which he chastised those Arab commentators who argue that the way in which the U.S. captured Saddam was meant to humiliate Arabs.

Al-Ghazali Harb stated in his article: "What we, as Arabs, should truly feel humiliated about are the prevailing political and social conditions in the Arab world — especially in Iraq — which allowed someone such as Saddam Hussein to . . . assume the presidency. We should feel humiliated that Saddam was able . . . to single-handedly initiate a number of catastrophic policies that transformed Iraq, relatively rich in natural, human and financial resources, into the poorest, most debt-ridden country in the Arab world, not to mention the hundreds of thousands killed and displaced. We should feel humiliated that some of our intellectuals, supposedly the representatives of our nations' consciences and the defenders of their liberty and dignity, not only dealt with Saddam, but also supported him. . . . The Arabs should have been the ones to bring down Saddam, in defense of their own dignity and their own true interests."

There are many more articles like this now appearing all over the Middle East including Saudi Arabia who did not take terrorism seriously until AFTER the US-led war in Iraq.

11. There has not been any major terrorist attack since September 11th on US soil so far. The US have sent a strong message to Al-Queda that they will remain resolved and determined to defeat them. Therefore, Al-Queda has turned to attacking America's weaker allies and Iraqi citizens. Fortunately, the Iraqis also turned out to be strong. They did not give in to Al-Queda's goals.

Having a free and democratic Iraq is what the terrorists fear the most! They are against democracy! Why do you think they have now turned from attacking US soldiers to innocent Iraqi people who are trying to rebuild their country into a democratic one? Why do you think they are trying to undermine "reconstruction?"

11. There has not been any major terrorist attack since September 11th on US soil so far. The US have sent a strong message to Al-Queda that they will remain resolved and determined to defeat them. Therefore, Al-Queda has turned to attacking America's weaker allies and Iraqi citizens. Fortunately, the Iraqis also turned out to be strong. They did not give in to Al-Queda's goals.
?"

I am european citizen and I will give you my opinion about all points that you has posted here .
First of all, I wanted US has a succefull militar campaig in Iraq. I was against the war and the false reasons which it gave us to justify it.
Right now Europe has to be there supporting the post war. It is very important for the world.
1.- I have understood Saudi Arabia has been the number one supporting many terrorism group. Moreover It is not a model of democratic.
2.- I believe you
3.Taliban regimen has been removed from Afghanistan, What is the future of this country are you talking about ?? Afgahnistan will be forgetting soon.

5, 6.-the Sadan Hussein regimen was not a threat for the World as US has tried to show us. there are other allied as Pakistan which has been selling nuclear thecnologies to many dangerous countries included Iran, Korea,etc.. But, it takes care because is banned to talk about allieds of the USA. Its president is a dictator like Sadan Hussein but he is a good guy and is more pretty.

7,8, 9,10 I should say I believe you.

to sum up, I am not owner of the trust. Like me there are many people who think that war was a mistaken. But we have to be together against terrorism._________________I could dance with you till the cows come home...On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows when you came home

1.- I have understood Saudi Arabia has been the number one supporting many terrorism group. Moreover It is not a model of democratic.

Hello Excalibur,
I agree with you about Saudi Arabia. Osama Bin Laden is from Saudi Arabia and most of the terrorists involved in the 9-11 attacks were from that country. I also agree that Saudi Arabia is not a model of democracy. However, the Americans did not have a regime change in Saudi Arabia because they are allies and could always work with the royal family. Already the Saudi government is cooperating with the United States in the war against terrorism. Iraq, on the other hand, would never cooperate with the United States in cracking down on terrorism. Saddam couldn't even cooperate with the UN for 12 years.

Excalibur wrote:

3.Taliban regimen has been removed from Afghanistan, What is the future of this country are you talking about ?? Afgahnistan will be forgetting soon.

As long as Osama Bin Laden (if he's really alive) and his second in command are still in Afghanistan, the United States will continue to look for him. Kabul is doing well now. Young girls in Kabul are currently getting an education and women are even allowed to work. There has been much progress in Kabul. Unfortunately, certain areas in Afghanistan, which are still under the control of warlords are still behind. Women's rights are being abused in these areas, and oppression is still taking place. This is why the US and NATO are still there. There is still much work to be done in Afghanistan compared to Iraq. In the first place, there are more illiterate people in Afghanistan; therefore, these people need to be educated so they can obtain the skills needed to build their country. The pipeline that is being built to the Caspian Sea where natural gas and oil can be mined will bring much wealth to Afghanitan and the surrounding region. Pakistan's economy will also benefit from it. That is the future that holds for Afhganistan and the surrounding region if both the US, Afghanistan, and the international community help each other out in getting rid of Bin Laden whom the US still thinks is hiding in the country.

Excalibur wrote:

5, 6.-the Sadan Hussein regimen was not a threat for the World as US has tried to show us. there are other allied as Pakistan which has been selling nuclear thecnologies to many dangerous countries included Iran, Korea,etc.. But, it takes care because is banned to talk about allieds of the USA. Its president is a dictator like Sadan Hussein but he is a good guy and is more pretty.

Saddam Hussein was a threat. He was more of a threat than Iran or North Korea. Of the three, it is Iraq (under Saddam) who has invaded two countries - Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in 1990. It was also Iraq who started an unprovoked attack on Israel in 1991 during the First Gulf War. Of the three countries, it was Iraq who used chemical weapons on his own people. Using chemicals on an enemy is understandable although unethical, but using it against your own people is pure madness!

Saddam was a threat because he provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey, Iran, and Israel. He has provided safe haven to such terrorists as Abu Abbas who masterminded the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking, Khala Khadr al-Salahat who designed the bomb that destroyed Pan Am flight 103, Abu Nidal and Abu Musad al-Zarqawi an al-Queda leader, and Ramzi Yousef who was the ringleader of the 1993 world Trade Center bombing plot. Saddam is a threat due to his involvement and support for terrorism. And we all know that asking Saddam to cooperate with the entire world to crack down on terrorism in his country isn't going to work. He couldn't even cooperate with the United Nations.

Saddam posed as a threat when he hired terrorists to assasinate George HW Bush in 1994 when Bush visited Kuwait. Fortunately, the assasination attempt failed. Saddam was a threat because he refused to comply with UN resolutions that clearly told him to disarm his WMD. Before the US-led war, the international community and the United Nations were all aware of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction. We were all aware of it because we had all the evidence showing that the US, Great Britain, France, Germany, and Russia provided him with those WMD. There was more evidence showing that Saddam had these WMD than North Korea. North Korea always boasted that they had WMD but so far they haven't even gassed anyone with chemicals. It was up to Saddam to show proof that he no longer had those WMD that was given to him by those countries. The burden of proof was on Saddam - not on the Americans or the UN. And for 12 years, Saddam failed to show this proof.

By ousting Saddam, the Americans have removed a source of refuge, training and funding and arming of many different terrorists. Also, by taking out Saddam, the Americans can now leave Saudi Arabia - which is actually the SOURCE of Bin Laden's hatred of America. The real reason Bin Laden hated America is stated in his earlier letters and fatwa against the US. He stated that he wanted the Americans out of his homeland of Saudi Arabia because in his eyes, he believes that only muslims are worthy to step on these sacred lands. According to Bin Laden's letter written on August 23, 1996, "greatest disaster that the muslims have suffered since the death of the Prophet is the occupation of the land of the two sacred mosques, the land of the Ka'ba and the Qibla, by the Christian armies of the Americans and their allies." In Bin Laden's eyes, Christians stepping on Saudi Arabia is the greatest disaster.

If the Americans were to follow the United Nations in 2003, they would still be a target of attack by Bin Laden and al-Queda. The Americans were in Saudi Arabia with the permission of the Saudi government, and they were there containing Saddam just like the UN and the international community wanted. By being in Saudi Arabia for the past 12 years, the Americans have bored the brunt of Bin Laden's hate. For the past 12 years, the Americans have paid a very high price just by being in Saudi Arabia containing Saddam. They paid the price through the Khobar Towers bombing and then in September 11, 2001. Yet, despite that, the UN and international community still wanted the US to continue containing Saddam knowing full well that they are more of a target than ever after September 11th and knowing full well that Bin Laden had wanted the Americans out of his homeland. Containing Saddam already came with a high price for the Americans.

I agree with you. We should all stick together in defeating al-Queda and all terrorist groups. It is important that the Middle East and all countries be united in standing against Bin Laden, al-Queda, and all terrorist groups which also includes the ETA in Spain and the IRA in Northern Ireland.

- Iran in the 1980s and Kuwait in 1990. It was also Iraq who started an unprovoked attack on Israel in 1991 during the First Gulf War. Of the three countries, it was Iraq who used chemical weapons on his own people. Using chemicals on an enemy is understandable although unethical, but using it against your own people is pure madness!

Saddam was a threat because he provided headquarters, operating bases, training camps, and other support to terrorist groups fighting the governments of neighboring Turkey, Iran, and Israel.

. And for 12 years, Saddam failed to show this proof.

Hello Diana,
I like a lot reading your posts. I have to admit that you are very well informed about subject. Moreover, you are a good speaker. Otherwise, you can bring many arguments here in order to corroborate the ideas. That is good.
In general, I agree whit Democratic countries should be together against Terrorism and many ideas as well.

But….
Afghanistan

As far as I know in Afghanistan there are a Headquarter commander with Germany and Holland and Special forces from USA, which are looking for Osama Bin Laden in the North. NATO forces have not taken over the Mission so far. I think that will be Next summer. Both countries out of NATO have sent their Forces and HQ.

In the past, I think in eighties decades USA had provided Weapons of Taliban Group when they were fighting against Russian. USA had others interests in that moments. Europa always is going to support USA againts terrorims. But Europa has its own way to fight against terrorism.
When the Headquarter of Osama was established in it was USA begun to be worried about the country.

Kabul is getting well now but when USA finds its goal, let say Osama this country will be forgetting. We will see it.

USA has a lot of to do in Iraq to be involved in Afghanistan as well. USA Army is having serius problem in order to replace their forces.
By being in Saudi Arabia for the past 12 years, the Americans have bored the brunt of Bin Laden's hate. For the past 12 years, the Americans have paid a very high price just by being in Saudi Arabia containing Saddam. They paid the price through the Khobar Towers bombing and then in September 11, 2001

That was a worse crime against humanity.
I would remember you that Sadan ilegally invaded Kuwait, However, USA led the war but with UN resolution and the support of the democratic countries.
Could you tell me why not USA got rid of Sadan?.
Why USA has been waited 12 y to throught out SH?

Anybody has able to demotrate SH had link with AlQuaida..so far?
Regarding the WMD and the role which SH played with it, there is an interesting article signed by George Melloan in Wall Street Journal in February 3th 2004. I agree with me WSJ is a reliable newspaper.
This article said
“Sadan thought he was playing a quite cleve game whith the funds from UN oild for food program support from France and Russian. He belived their voutes could save him from a US attack”……”Sadam turned olf for peace into a money- making and influence scheme….. the program can be renamed “oil for palace”.

The article said “he also propaged the he had a stockpils of WMD for they wanted to be dangerous or about to become so.”

He was a truly threat._________________I could dance with you till the cows come home...On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows when you came home

Not taking out Saddam in 1991 was a great mistake of the United States and the coalition forces. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, the UN demanded that he withdraw from Kuwait. Since he refused, the US and its coalition went to war and succeeded in getting Saddam to withdraw. When the Iraqi people rose against Saddam at the encouragement of the US, they were hoping that the Iraqi people would be able to take out Saddam without any outside help. As we now know, that proved to be a mistake because the Iraqi people were unsuccessful. It was also a mistake for the UN, the international community, as well as the US and its coalition forces to stood by and do nothing while Saddam brutally slaughtered his own people in 1991 and buried them in mass graves. If the US had intervened in 1991, the Americans would not be in Saudi Arabia for 12 years containing Iraq, and more Iraqi lives would have been saved. The only thing I can not say is whether Iraq would have been a democracy in 1991 with Saddam out. There is a possibility that Iraq would resort to an undemocratic state probably similar to Iran in 1991. Today, however, polls show that most Iraqis favor a democracy.

Another mistake committed is allowing Saddam to continually defy the United Nations. Because of his defiance, other countries did not take the United Nations seriously. Saddam was given too many chances, and it made the UN look weak to the rest of the world as Saddam constantly succeeded in defying the UN for 12 years.

Not taking out Saddam in 1991 was a great mistake of the United States and the coalition forces...........

You are right. When US army led a big coalition forces along with the supporting of International Community that was the key of the successful war and permit to release Kuwait from Sadan Hussein’s Army. Moreover, that was the great opportunity to take out him.

On the one hand, the aim of USA was released Kuwait; the victory was too easy, the superior technology was obvious. As you can see yourself he was a terrible liar. He wanted to look like more danger than he was. So USA had an easy victory and Coalition Forces were ready to control the country.

On the other hand, Kurds and Shia population took the opportunity to rise up in rebellion. SH took the control of Country and crushed the rebellion. It was advised to not take out SH because at least he could control the integrity of the country. Furthermore, there was a high risk turning Iraq into a new Iran.

Of course, my last paragraphs is my opinion. I am sure what truly happened??_________________I could dance with you till the cows come home...On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows when you came home

Another mistake committed is allowing Saddam to continually defy the United Nations. Because of his defiance, other countries did not take the United Nations seriously. Saddam was given too many chances, and it made the UN look weak to the rest of the world as Saddam constantly succeeded in defying the UN for 12 years.

I strongly agree with you . However, United Nation is usefully, at least there is forum where all countries can be heard of. Countries as USA, France, Russian, UK, among the others never permit taking any resolution against their interests. I think, Russian is in the top ranking and following USA to ban resolutions. Furthermore, if the powerful countries don’t provide their army It would be impossible to carry out whatever resolutions_________________I could dance with you till the cows come home...On second thought, I'd rather dance with the cows when you came home